>>The same is true in the US: under Democratic control, more money goes directly to those who need money (and therefore spend it right away) and to projects (like roads, bridges, etc.) that hire people. Those efforts result in less Federal debt after 4 or 8 years and a healthier economy. Under Republicans, the money goes to corporations, where a good chunk of it is never seen again. Money doesn't come from a "pot" -- it moves around the economy, either quickly or slowly. When it moves quickly, everyone benefits. This isn't just Keynesian theory -- it's been proven over and over again across the shifts in political power in the US.
>
>So Dem.=Good, Rep.=Bad. Got it.
>
>And I agree, "money doesn't come from a pot". But saying "it moves around the economy" doesn't explain where it does come from, Which is ... ?

Money is a medium of exchange. It is not a thing. A government can print all the money they want, ship it to banks, and if no one is engaging in purchasing goods or services, it will just sit there. In The Great Depression in the 1930's there was just as much money as in the years before. The money just sat there.

It wasn't until people were put back to work in WWII, starting in 1939, that the depression in the US actually ended. The workers had money and they spent it. If the money had been given to them, they would also have spent it. If jobs had been created that paid enough to support a family, regardless of what they did in that job, they would have spent it. They spent it, and the economy became healthy again.

Cranking up the frequency of exchanges will therefore make it look as though there is more money in the economy. Because the money will change hands more quickly.

One of the mistaken ways to make money move more quickly is to lower interest rates. What that leads to is speculation, and money used in that way doesn't travel very fast: it ends up in the hands of people who don't need to spend it. A VAT tax and relatively high personal tax rates starting to rise at about double the poverty level, combined with government programs that spend money in labor intensive industries (non-profit healthcare, non-profit education, etc.) keep the frequency of exchange high -- while bettering the lives of the all. That's good economics. Of course you would know all about that, being in The NL.

Hank